Up to three homes at Clennage, Eckington, Pershore

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to three dwellings.

“The application is for the Permission in Principle for the erection of up to 3 no. dwellings.”

Officer report

The site

The site is about 0.43 hectares of garden land between existing homes and agricultural fields, outside conservation and national landscape areas.

“The application site comprises the garden land of the property known as ‘Clennage’, extending to approximately 0.43 hectares. The site is situated along Nafford Road…”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier application for two detached homes was refused and dismissed on appeal; another outline application was withdrawn.

“W/13/02295/OU. Outline application for two detached dwellings with associated access and gardens. Clennage, Nafford Road, Eckington, Pershore, WR10 3DH. REF. Jan 16 2014; Appeal Dismissed Mar 13 2015.”

“W/14/01233/OU. Outline planning application for a single detached dwelling with associated access and garden. Clennage, Nafford Road, Eckington, Pershore, WR10 3DH. WDN. Apr 1 2015”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the site was considered accessible, sustainable and suitable for infill, with housing benefits outweighing adverse impacts.

“Although, the proposal lies outside of the defined settlement boundary and conflicts with Policy SWDP2, which sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, it has been demonstrated that the site is in a sustainable location and would be a infill development. The site benefits from access to various modes of transport and has access to key services and facilities, thereby meeting the requirements of Policy SWDP4.”

“Notwithstanding this, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore the Council's policies for the supply of housing are out of date, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish council objected over the neighbourhood plan, highway safety, countryside protection, views, settlement boundaries and precedent; highways accepted its standing advice criteria.

“9) With the proposed development sites in the Neighbourhood Plan having been delivered already, or being developed currently, it is in envisaged by the PC that that there will be a requirement for new sites in the future revision of our Neighbourhood Plan (due in three years time), and that will undoubtedly be influenced by the SWDP in place at that time. As with the current Neighbourhood Plan, any proposed new…”

“County Highways Authority: This planning application meets the criteria under Worcestershire County Council's Highways Standing Advice (October 2023). Reference is made to the WCC Highways Standing Advice document.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Eight objections cited village character, views, traffic, drainage, the earlier refusal and appeal, countryside development and conflict with the neighbourhood plan.

“The material planning objections raised have been summarised by the case officer to include:”

“Impact character of the village • Spoil views • Outside Development Boundary • Precedent for future applications • Urbanisation • Increase traffic • Drainage is stretched • Site previously refused under W/13/02295/OU and dismissed at appeal • Conflict with Neighbourhood Plan…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor and an objector spoke against approval, while the agent and another speaker spoke in favour.

Committee discussion

Members discussed the neighbourhood plan, sustainability, walking distances, the number of homes and how development could affect the street scene.

“The Local Member thanked the planning committee members for attending the site visit as he thought it important to see PIP sites. Councillor P Middlebrough gave some context to the Neighbourhood Plan. The village were enthusiastic about the planning process and the Plan was approved in 2020 and it is now recognised that due to the SWDPR the plan needs to be reviewed.”

“Councillor E J Kearsey commended any village for a Neighbourhood Plan and urged Eckington to review their plan which would take less time. The Council now had funding available for reviews and new Neighbourhood Plans when the Government withdrew its funding. Councillor Kearsey urged the Parish Council to go ahead with that because then they would have full weight because something like this that is outside their development boundary.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee delegated authority to grant permission in principle, subject to the listed informatives.

“To delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure to grant approval of this permission in principle subject to the informatives listed, allowing for any subsequent amendments to the informatives as required by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure.”

“Where permission in principle is granted by application, the default duration of that permission is 3 years from the date of this permission in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017. There is no reason to alter the default duration with regards to the permission in principle hereby granted.”

Minutes